I have a second blog, Writopia which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods and embellishment of his personal achievements.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Kafka Had An Easier Time

After getting over the word-for-word copying of inaccurate book descriptions that are duplicated in the judge's decision and the Random House briefs, the shock has grown even more intense as we get into the rest of the decision.

It appears as if the judge is referring to some other case entirely, or has not read our legal briefs as carefully as he has Random House's.

Take this astounding quote from page 13 where Judge Daniels writes, "The gravamen of Perdue’s complaint is that Brown copied the basic premise underlying Daughter of God...."

That is simply UNtrue.

Even a first year-law student knows that a basic premise is NOT protectible. What is supported in several hundred pages of our filings (all available here for any reader to see) is that my unique expression, my original creation was copied. We presented detailed evidence, comparisons and examples of this.

This astounding situation is compounded as the judge goes on to cite a number of generalities that were section headings to our specific arguments. He cites these generalities as if they were our entire argument rather than an organization of the evidence as to the infringements of expression.

Certainly, if the generalities were the only arguments we presented, then we'd be trying to claim protection for the unprotectible. But that is not the case.

We'll look very carefully in the next post at one specific example of what we said in our filings versus what the judge SAID we SAID.

4 Comments:

Certainly the sequencing and exact same context mean something. Changing the names is not enough, but the ultimate conclusion of the books is different. I don't think anyone will get by that. I mean they skim-think as it is. Daniels bought the whole scenes a faire line that encompases everything apprently.